Loading ITAT cases…
54 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that although the initial penalty notice was vague, the Assessing Officer's penalty order clearly specified the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's claim for exemption on a commercial property under Section 54 was a patent wrong claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim of business activity with supporting evidence. Therefore, the AO's action of treating the sale of land as capital gain under Section 50C was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's approach of concluding that income had escaped assessment based solely on information received from the Investigation Wing, without independent inquiry, was incorrect. The notice issued under Section 148 was found to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that Section 94(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with bonus stripping, is applicable only to units of mutual funds and not to shares. Therefore, the disallowance of loss on sale of shares was not justified.